Employment Relations Authority

[Ocean1]

KB anfem innit.

Although I've come to realise that removing the person and ignoring the issue is tantamount to entrapment. To that end you fuckas get what you deserve from them fuckas. If you're not going to do anything about the issue, stop moaning about the problem.

Removing the person isn't ignoring the issue, it's fixing it. And us fuckers are absolutely entitled to moan about thieving, lying employees.

But, y'know, you're right to blame employers for the size of the dole queue, if they didn't sack thieving, lying employees there wouldn't be anywhere near as many.

[mashman]

Removing the person isn't ignoring the issue, it's fixing it. And us fuckers are absolutely entitled to moan about thieving, lying employees.

But, y'know, you're right to blame employers for the size of the dole queue, if they didn't sack thieving, lying employees there wouldn't be anywhere near as many.

It is if your investigation stops at he stole.

I know I'm right, but thanks for the affirmation... fortunately for employers though, I look further than them just wanting to make a profit at the expense of their employees.

[Dangsta]

ERA cases tend to be pretty long and complex, plus if its being heard by the Authority it would have had to go through employment mediation and fail first. In summary it would have been fairly drawn out dispute over a period of months so I'm pretty sure there's alot more to this than can be pulled from a newspaper article. From what I can see though, the case was pretty open and shut with the employee irrepairably damaging the trust and confidence of the employer by lying about his credentials and also nearly killing people with shoddy work. The threshold to terminate employment is pretty high but I think a reasonable employer would have been justified to sack. It can only be then that the employer acted unreasonably in the process of dealing with the problem.

Don't forget as well that if the employer had actually done the reference check before he employed rather than after he sacked the guy, he'd have found out all about his quals and not hired him in the first place.

The employer seemed to want to "go it alone" as there's no way anyone with an ounce of knowledge of employment law would have taken the approach he did. A simple letter inviting the guy to an investigatory meeting and asking him to respond to the allegations that he had lied in his application, wasn't qualified and had nearly killed an apprentice would have taken half an hour to draft and a few minutes to deliver. Give him a couple of days to get a support person/union rep/lawyer by his side and then meet, consider his response and probably terminate his employment (I can't see any excuse saving the job if the allegations were substantiated). Done and dusted in less than 5 days. There's nothing complicated or difficult here....he could have googled the answer or made a free call to the dept of labour and have someone guide him through it. Instead he finds himself on the pointy end of a $38k legal bill and $10k damages to pay. Plonker deserved all he got. Maybe he'll actually do the reference checks before he employs someone next time.

Finally, as if its not enough of a kicker.....the idiot has the audacity to blame the legislation for messing the case up. If this guy hadn't failed the intelligence test on almost every level the employee wouldn't have got through the factory door in the first place. Rant over......

[Oakie]

The employer seemed to want to "go it alone" as there's no way anyone with an ounce of knowledge of employment law would have taken the approach he did. A simple letter inviting the guy to an investigatory meeting and asking him to respond to the allegations that he had lied in his application, wasn't qualified and had nearly killed an apprentice would have taken half an hour to draft and a few minutes to deliver. Give him a couple of days to get a support person/union rep/lawyer by his side and then meet, consider his response and probably terminate his employment (I can't see any excuse saving

Exsakery. I've terminated 5 people myself using just that process. It's not hard. Just got to play by the rules. It's about being fair because employers have a heap of power and the process just tries to provide a bit of balance. Good process makes the end result more manageable for everyone too. Of the 5 I've dismissed, one gave me a hug at the end of the process and another shook my hand. They knew they'd had a fair hearing and that I'd only made the decision having heard and considered what they'd said in our meetings.

[Ocean1]

It's about being fair because employers have a heap of power and the process just tries to provide a bit of balance.

Balance, eh?

How many legal hoops does an employee have to jump through when he decides to terminate the agreement?

[Oakie]

Balance, eh?

How many legal hoops does an employee have to jump through when he decides to terminate the agreement?

Just the one. Fair process. Same as you get in the criminal courts.

[tigertim20]

making their position redundant can be an easier alternative

[Dangsta]

making their position redundant can be an easier alternative

umm nope.........Definition of redundancy is that the position is surplus and not needed. If you plan to replace the "redundant person" then expect to get challenged.

Also, a genuine redundancy takes consultation which in itself can be a long, drawn out process (nowhere near as short as a disciplinary) and involve and stress out other staff that didn't do anything. You'd need to map it out carefully and just the period for affected staff to respond to the proposal can be one to two weeks.

Also, you'd have a hell of a job to prove the redundancy wasn't a sham to deal with a performance issue in these circumstances. This means you could work through the whole process and still get a personal grievance.

Also, chances are you'd have to pay redundancy compensation. To a cheat, liar and criminal mastermind who obviously rigged the fridge to electrocute the apprentice that was sleeping with his wife....okay I made that last bit up. Still why pay severance to someone you can sack for free?

Any day of the week, disciplinary under these circumstances is a no brainer. Just sayin

[Ocean1]

Just the one. Fair process. Same as you get in the criminal courts.

He has to say: "I resign", and turn up to work for either whatever his contract stipulates is due notice or for the duration of one pay-cycle.

When an employer can say: "You're fired", and pay the employee for whatever the contract stipulates then it'll be a balanced agreement, and not until.

[Woodman]

Never ever accept a resignation during a disciplinary process. Let the process take its course otherwise a PG is very likely siting constructive dismissal or resignation under duress.

nasty

[FJRider]

He has to say: "I resign", and turn up to work for either whatever his contract stipulates is due notice or for the duration of one pay-cycle.

When an employer can say: "You're fired", and pay the employee for whatever the contract stipulates then it'll be a balanced agreement, and not until.

Most Employment contracts state minimum notice of dismissal that can be given. (including wages in lieu of notice clause)

Also reasons for instant dismissal ... and steps that must be followed.


So it could be ... Here's your wages ... don't slam the door on your way out.

[tigertim20]

umm nope.........Definition of redundancy is that the position is surplus and not needed. If you plan to replace the "redundant person" then expect to get challenged.

Also, a genuine redundancy takes consultation which in itself can be a long, drawn out process (nowhere near as short as a disciplinary) and involve and stress out other staff that didn't do anything. You'd need to map it out carefully and just the period for affected staff to respond to the proposal can be one to two weeks.

Also, you'd have a hell of a job to prove the redundancy wasn't a sham to deal with a performance issue in these circumstances. This means you could work through the whole process and still get a personal grievance.

Also, chances are you'd have to pay redundancy compensation. To a cheat, liar and criminal mastermind who obviously rigged the fridge to electrocute the apprentice that was sleeping with his wife....okay I made that last bit up. Still why pay severance to someone you can sack for free?

Any day of the week, disciplinary under these circumstances is a no brainer. Just sayin

easy enough to do, watched it happen more than once.
Just takes a simple, internal 'restructure'

Done right it can happen quickly and effectively, and with no repercussions for the employer. Can be the better option when you know you're dealing with a fuckstain that just wants to cause trouble

[Dangsta]

easy enough to do, watched it happen more than once.
Just takes a simple, internal 'restructure'

Done right it can happen quickly and effectively, and with no repercussions for the employer. Can be the better option when you know you're dealing with a fuckstain that just wants to cause trouble

Hey this is good fun.

I get where you're coming from and I've used the odd "restructure" myself when there's been a toxic employee that's been making people miserable and in terms of big picture, I've either not wanted to replace the role like for like or there hasn't been enough of a performance issue to justify termination. Generally I've been faced with either 3 weeks doing a restructure or 6 months of performance management......and the restructure won. However, no way in the circumstances of what we're discussing would I do anything but kick off a disciplinary. It'd be over quicker, I wouldn't have to pay the employee a cent, I'd be seen by other staff to have a zero tolerance for that kind of thing and I wouldn't feel to worried about a PG. You're right though that done right it can happen quickly and effectively. Each issue turns on its own merits. If its easier and less risky to the organisation then I'd restructure. Just not in this case.

[Dangsta]

He has to say: "I resign", and turn up to work for either whatever his contract stipulates is due notice or for the duration of one pay-cycle.

When an employer can say: "You're fired", and pay the employee for whatever the contract stipulates then it'll be a balanced agreement, and not until.

You're the guy in the newspaper story right? Sorry for calling you an idiot in my earlier post. I didn't think you were following the story.

So if you turned up for work and your boss called you into his office and said "you're fired". You'd think that's fair?
Cos I can turn up in my boss's office and say "I resign" and everything would be sweet as. He'd probably even write me a nice reference.

[Ocean1]

So if you turned up for work and your boss called you into his office and said "you're fired". You'd think that's fair?

If my performance was such that he wasn't making enough to cover the cost of employing me then absolutely, the only way I could stay is by relying on others in the business to cover my arse. If an employer / employee relationship is to be fair it has to be a joint venture, we both have to try to make sure he's getting enough value from me to at least cover my wages and his overheads.

Cos I can turn up in my boss's office and say "I resign" and everything would be sweet as. He'd probably even write me a nice reference.

And, as I said, if you can walk away from the agreement that easily then why shouldn't your boss?